DOCSLIB.ORG

Winter 2021 the National Microelectronics Challenge

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Winter 2021 the National Microelectronics Challenge IQT Insights: The National Microelectronics Challenge Growing U.S. concerns about national microelectronics competitiveness and supply chain security have prompted proposals for government action.1 This policy brief explains IQT’s view that innovation is the key to meeting both competitiveness and security challenges. The paper argues that the nation should address impediments to commercial success in the specific microelectronics technologies that matter most for U.S. security and competitiveness. In so doing, government can better align private sector incentives with the national interest. IQT recognizes the value of boosting federal research and development and building U.S.-based chip manufacturing “The nation must facilities. In IQT’s assessment, however, it is equally important to support priority technologies (e.g., tooling, address impediments packaging) with commercialization support. Government to commercial could support the creation of “sandboxes” to help transition federally funded research from lab to market. Additionally, success in specific government could invest in emerging companies where the microelectronics private sector is not funding specific key technologies at a level commensurate with the national interest. This policy technologies that brief, written for the non-expert, provides background and matter most.” analysis (Section I) and recommendations (Section II). IQT is a non-profit strategic investor that helps deliver emerging technologies to multiple U.S. national security agencies. This analysis flows from our role as one of the world’s most prolific investors operating at the intersection of national security, technology trends, and the private sector. Section I. Background and Analysis Microelectronics are small electronic components (e.g., transistors, inductors, diodes, capacitors) or complex systems (e.g., microprocessors, AI accelerators) which have become vital for powering everything from smart phones to the most advanced military systems. They provide the building blocks of advanced technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI) and biotechnology. The following section provides a brief overview of the evolution of the industry, technology trends, security considerations, and private sector investment gaps related to microelectronics production and supply chain security. Industry Evolution The United States pioneered semiconductor research since the early 20th century, but it was not until its widespread use in radar, radios, and later as the heart of computer systems, did semiconductors become nearly synonymous with microelectronics. U.S. firms led the rapidly growing commercial market and dominated it globally for decades. As the role of semiconductors grew, the industry evolved. Today the microelectronics production process – from materials and design to manufacturing and packaging – is disaggregated and highly globalized. A single chip may traverse 70 countries before its production is complete. 2 The United States still leads the global industry in several key areas, such as the design of chips and specialized manufacturing tooling, that represent the highest end of the value chain and 1 The FY21 National Defense Authorization Act includes several new microelectronics initiatives, see https://fcw.com/articles/2021/01/01/ndaa-veto-overturned-senate.aspx. The National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence 2020 Interim Report and Third Quarter Recommendations also offer recommendations on microelectronics, see https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jg9YlNagGI_0rid-HXY-fvJOAejlFIiy/view. 2 S. Alam, T. Chu, S. Lohokare, S. Saito, M. Baker (2020). Globality and Complexity of the Semiconductor Ecosystem. Accenture and GSA. <https://www.accenture.com/_acnmedia/PDF-119/Accenture-Globality-Semiconductor-Industry.pdf> © 2021 In-Q-Tel, Inc. Page | 1 IQT Insights: The National Microelectronics Challenge annual markets of $419B3 and $100B4, respectively. The U.S. lead in design has proved critical in keeping U.S. innovation at the cutting edge of technology development. American companies’ strength in tooling equipment also has helped constrain the ability of potential adversaries to develop more advanced manufacturing facilities. However, many other countries’ firms are increasingly innovative and important in areas of U.S. strength. Moreover, new aspects of microelectronics on which the United States has not previously focused its research or commercial activities, such as packaging and materials, will likely assume greater significance as the industry continues to evolve. To date, the most significant change to the microelectronics ecosystem is the migration of manufacturing to Asia. In 1990, the United States and Europe produced three-quarters of global capacity.5 Relative labor costs, differing environmental sensitivities, and government willingness to help fund large capital investment helped shift much of this manufacturing East. A large Asian network of suppliers and services, including fabrication (production of chips), packaging, assembly, and testing has developed. Fabrication is a particular U.S. concern. Korea and Taiwan host the dominant “merchant fabrication” facilities, with capacity largely reserved for big chip companies. This poses challenges for small design companies, design startups, and chip customers that require only small batches of testing or production. For U.S. companies, overseas manufacturing introduces additional friction as well as security concerns, including the risk of compromising their intellectual property. U.S.-based company Intel has maintained fabrication facilities dedicated for their own chip production. However, the majority of U.S. chip designers are now “fabless,” meaning that they send their designs to be tested and produced by foreign merchant fabs. Large corporations such as Qualcomm, AMD, and Apple easily access these facilities for their million-chip runs, but startups that require small volume runs and companies designing specialized chips often struggle to gain access to production facilities. China China undoubtedly will become an increasingly large player in the global microelectronics industry. The Chinese government employs national technology strategies, state spending, intellectual property theft and forced technology transfer, and integration of civilian and military research and development efforts to support its ambitious microelectronics goals. Chinese firms also received the single largest share of global venture financing for microelectronics in 2019, with 40% of investment (at higher average dollar amounts) compared to 25% to U.S. companies and 18% to the U.K. and Europe.6 While previous state-led efforts to develop Chinese microelectronics capacity were largely unsuccessful, China is now pursuing the path taken by Japan and Korea, using the development of memory as a stepping stone to create more sophisticated microelectronics products. Market demand will reinforce the state’s push to reach self-sufficiency in production by 2025. China buys 53% of the world’s chips and relies on foreign countries for approximately 84% of its internal 3Gartner: Market Share: Semiconductors by End Market, Worldwide, 2019. Published 6 April 2020. By Andrew Norwood, Jon Erensen, George Brocklehurst, Ben Lee, Alan Priestley, Bill Ray, Roger Sheng, Amy Teng, Joseph Unsworth, Masatsune Yamaji, Juhi Gupta, Anushree Verma, Rajeev Rajput, Kanishka Chauhan, Nolan Reilly 4 Gartner: Forecast Analysis: Semiconductor Capital Spending and Manufacturing Equipment, Worldwide, Published 14 October 2020. By Gaurav Gupta (VP Analyst) and Bob Johnson (VP Analyst). 5 Fitch, Asa; Santiago, Luis. “Why Fewer Chips Say “Made in the U.S.A.”, Wall Street Journal, 3 November 2020. 6 In-Q-Tel analysis January 2018 using Pitchbook data © 2021 In-Q-Tel, Inc. Page | 2 IQT Insights: The National Microelectronics Challenge semiconductor consumption. 7 Although China’s other domestic manufacturing facilities are less advanced, China’s Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corporation is working toward cutting-edge (7 nanometer node) technology, nipping at the heels of global industry leaders Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) and Samsung. In considering the future evolution of the microelectronics industry, it is reasonable to assume that China will continue to improve its technological capabilities, ultimately achieving 5 or 3 nanometer technology. Additionally, the United States should assume that some foreign governments, particularly China, will subsidize national firms in order to hold market share in this critical industry. Both factors highlight the importance of continued U.S. technology innovation. Technology Trends The microelectronics industry is on the verge of significant change. For decades, it relied on shrinking transistor sizes to squeeze more integrated circuits onto a silicon chip, doubling performance every two years while reducing costs. This phenomenon, knowns as Moore’s Law, enabled the shift from minicomputers to PCs to smart phones and now the cloud. The process began to slow over a decade ago and experts predict that transistor scaling will reach its final, smallest capabilities at the 3 nanometer node around 2022-23. Although additional nodes at 2 nm and 1.4 nm might be possible, there is a great deal of uncertainty around whether these nodes would ever become viable. Impending physical limitations on the size of a transistor have begun to reshape microelectronics manufacturing. Companies still using CMOS, the predominate technology
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Evolving Role of Semiconductor Consortia in the United States and Japan
    Portland State University PDXScholar Business Faculty Publications and Presentations The School of Business Fall 1998 The Evolving Role of Semiconductor Consortia in the United States and Japan Rose Marie Ham University of California - Berkeley Greg Linden University of California - Berkeley Melissa M. Appleyard Portland State University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/busadmin_fac Part of the Business Administration, Management, and Operations Commons Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Citation Details Ham, R., Linden, G., & Appleyard, M. M. (1998). The Evolving Role of Semiconductor Consortia in the United States and Japan. California Management Review, 41(1), 137-163. This Article is brought to you for free and open access. It has been accepted for inclusion in Business Faculty Publications and Presentations by an authorized administrator of PDXScholar. Please contact us if we can make this document more accessible: [email protected]. The Evolving Role of Semiconductor Consortia in the United States and Japan Rose Marie Ham Greg Linden Melissa M. Appleyard ince the late 1970s, governments throughout the industrialized economics have proclaimed the benefits of research consortia. In the United States, tor example, ihe 1984 National Cooperative Research SAct (NCRA) relaxed U.S. antitrust laws to encourage the formation of research consortia hy firms in the same industry; by the end of 1995, over 575 consortia had heen registered under the NCRA in a variety of
    [Show full text]
  • Timeline of the Semiconductor Industry in South Portland
    Timeline of the Semiconductor Industry in South Portland Note: Thank you to Kathy DiPhilippo, Executive Director/Curator of the South Portland Historical Society and Judith Borelli, Governmental Relations of Texas Inc. for providing some of the information for this timeline below. Fairchild Semiconductor 1962 Fairchild Semiconductor (a subsidiary of Fairchild Camera and Instrument Corp.) opened in the former Boland's auto building (present day Back in Motion) at 185 Ocean Street in June of 1962. They were there only temporarily, as the Western Avenue building was still being constructed. 1963 Fairchild Semiconductor moves to Western Avenue in February 1963. 1979 Fairchild Camera and Instrument Corp. is acquired/merged with Schlumberger, Ltd. (New York) for $363 million. 1987 Schlumberger, Ltd. sells its Fairchild Semiconductor Corp. subsidiary to National Semiconductor Corp. for $122 million. 1997 National Semiconductor sells the majority ownership interest in Fairchild Semiconductor to an investment group (made up of Fairchild managers, including Kirk Pond, and Citcorp Venture Capital Ltd.) for $550 million. Added Corporate Campus on Running Hill Road. 1999 In an initial public offering in August 1999, Fairchild Semiconductor International, Inc. becomes a publicly traded corporation on the New York Stock Exchange. 2016 Fairchild Semiconductor International, Inc. is acquired by ON Semiconductor for $2.4 billion. National Semiconductor 1987 National Semiconductor acquires Fairchild Semiconductor Corp. from Schlumberger, Ltd. for $122 million. 1995 National Semiconductor breaks ground on new 200mm factory in December 1995. 1996 National Semiconductor announces plans for a $600 million expansion of its facilities in South Portland; construction of a new wafer fabrication plant begins. 1997 Plant construction for 200mm factory completed and production starts.
    [Show full text]
  • Website: Friend Or Foe?
    VENTURE CAPITAL & PRIVATE EQUITY FUNDS DESKBOOK SERIES Website: Friend or Foe? Many venture capital firms and private equity firms create and maintain websites—usually eponymous— to achieve such far-ranging goals as building brand recognition, communicating with their existing investors, and creating channels of information with existing and potential portfolio companies. It is appropriate to use a website for such purposes and others, such as describing the industry sectors of interest to a venture capital or private equity firm, provided that certain precautions are taken as described in this article. Caution is warranted when establishing a website because there may be unintended legal consequences lurking within seemingly harmless web content. A scrubbed website can be a true friend for a venture capital or private equity firm. A neglected or carelessly composed website can be a terrible foe. Do Not Solicit Investors When engaged in a private offering (i.e., raising a fund), it is important that venture capital firms and private equity firms keep in mind that many of their funds are relying on exemptions to a number of different securities laws that all have one common requirement: there must be no public offering of securities by or on behalf of any of such private funds managed by such firms. Websites are generally viewed as being publicly available. Regulatory authorities, such as the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), have adopted very broad views of what constitutes an offering. As such, any materials on a website that could be viewed as a general solicitation or general advertisement may be considered a public offering by the SEC or other regulatory authorities.
    [Show full text]
  • Walker Report
    WALKER REPORT NOVEMBER 2018 Our Support of the Walker Report Over the past several years, Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. L.P. Overview of KKR and our private equity business (together with its affiliates, “KKR,” “we” or “us”) has been KKR is a leading global investment firm that manages multiple working to increase the transparency of our investment activities alternative asset classes, including private equity, energy, and processes, both through formal compliance with guidelines infrastructure, real estate and credit, with strategic partners recommending increased levels of disclosure as well as through that manage hedge funds. KKR aims to generate attractive voluntary initiatives with our clients, partners, portfolio investment returns for its fund investors by following a patient companies and the public at large. and disciplined investment approach, employing world-class In November 2007, a working group formed by The British people, and driving growth and value creation with KKR portfolio Private Equity and Venture Capital Association (“BVCA”) and companies. KKR invests its own capital alongside the capital it led by Sir David Walker issued the Guidelines for Disclosure manages for fund investors and provides financing solutions and Transparency in Private Equity. That publication, which is and investment opportunities through its capital markets also known as the “Walker Report,” makes specific business. References to KKR’s investments may include the recommendations for improving the level of public disclosure activities of its sponsored funds. For additional information by private equity firms operating in the United Kingdom. about KKR & Co. Inc. (NYSE: KKR), please visit KKR’s website at www.kkr.com and on Twitter @KKR_Co.
    [Show full text]
  • FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS: Commission
    Louisville Metro Fre Revenue FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS: Commission Venture Capital Funds and Family Limited Partnerships WHICH BUSINESS ENTITIES QUALIFY FOR THE VENTURE CAPITAL FUND OL TAX EXEMPTION? The occupational license taxes do not apply to venture capital funds business entities as defined in LMCO 110.03(A)(12). To qualify for the exemption, the venture capital fund must be a limited liability company, limited liability partnership, or limited partnership formed and operated for the exclusive purpose of buying, holding and/or selling securities (including debt Are business entities that qualify for securities), on its own behalf and not as a broker, primarily in non- publicly traded companies, and the capital of the fund is primarily the Venture Capital Funds or Family derived from investments by entities and/or individuals which are Limited Partnerships tax exemptions neither related to nor affiliated with the fund. See LMCO required to file an annual OL return? 110.03(A)(12) for additional information and definitions. So long as the entity files an annual informational return along with the required WHICH BUSINESS ENTITIES QUALIFY FOR THE documentation, the entity is not responsible FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP OL TAX for filing an occupational license return. EXEMPTION? The occupational license taxes do not apply to family limited partnership business entities as defined in LMCO 110.03(A)(13). To qualify for the exemption, the income received by family limited partnerships must be from a family-owned non-corporate entity where the sole activity of such entity is the production of investment income not derived from tangible or real property and at least 95% of the equity of the family limited partnership is owned by members of the family.
    [Show full text]
  • Cad Veteran Richard Smith Joins Micro Magic, Inc. As Senior Technical Advisor
    CAD Veteran Richard Smith Joins Micro Magic, Inc. Press Release CAD VETERAN RICHARD SMITH JOINS MICRO MAGIC, INC. AS SENIOR TECHNICAL ADVISOR “Dick brings a tremendous Sunnyvale, California -- June 7, 1999 -- Micro Magic, Inc. wealth of technical and (MMI) today announced the appointment of Dr. Richard business experience in C. Smith as senior technical advisor. Smith comes to MMI EDA to Micro Magic from Cadence Design Systems, Inc., where he was most re- and its customers. Dick cently a senior program manager in consulting services. At will be responsible for Cadence, he also served in software support management assisting with product and as the program manager for the Texas Instruments needs and definitions and account. Smith has held technical and management posi- for launching a design tions with Texas Instruments, National Semiconductor, and center and sales support capability in the Central Hewlett-Packard. region of the U.S.” Mark Santoro, MMI's president and CEO, stated, "Dick Mark Santoro President brings a tremendous wealth of technical and business expe- and CEO Micro Magic, rience in EDA to Micro Magic and its customers. Dick will Inc. be responsible for assisting with product needs and defini- tions and for launching a design center and sales support Contact: Heidi Vantulden capability in the Central region of the U.S." Armstrong Kendall, Inc. 503-672-4685 "MMI has a fresh new approach to EDA. It's a company of highly skilled design engineers who create very high per- heidi@armstrongkendall. formance processors and memories, and the EDA software com environment for managing the entire process," stated Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Private Equity in the 2000S 1 Private Equity in the 2000S
    Private equity in the 2000s 1 Private equity in the 2000s Private equity in the 2000s relates to one of the major periods in the history of private equity and venture capital. Within the broader private equity industry, two distinct sub-industries, leveraged buyouts and venture capital experienced growth along parallel although interrelated tracks. The development of the private equity and venture capital asset classes has occurred through a series of boom and bust cycles since the middle of the 20th century. As the 20th century ended, so, too, did the dot-com bubble and the tremendous growth in venture capital that had marked the previous five years. In the wake of the collapse of the dot-com bubble, a new "Golden Age" of private equity ensued, as leveraged buyouts reach unparalleled size and the private equity firms achieved new levels of scale and institutionalization, exemplified by the initial public offering of the Blackstone Group in 2007. Bursting the Internet Bubble and the private equity crash (2000–2003) The Nasdaq crash and technology slump that started in March 2000 shook virtually the entire venture capital industry as valuations for startup technology companies collapsed. Over the next two years, many venture firms had been forced to write-off large proportions of their investments and many funds were significantly "under water" (the values of the fund's investments were below the amount of capital invested). Venture capital investors sought to reduce size of commitments they had made to venture capital funds and in numerous instances, investors sought to unload existing commitments for cents on the dollar in the secondary market.
    [Show full text]
  • Start Ups and Emerging Companies – 101: Choice of Entity
    JANUARY 14, 2013 | HANSON BRIDGETT CORPORATE PRACTICE GROUP What type of corporate entity is best for my business? Start Ups and As a founder/entrepreneur, you (and your partners) have an idea Emerging for a new venture are willing to invest your time and money in the start-up of a new business. Selecting the right corporate vehicle Companies – 101: for your business is critical to your success. The goal of the Choice of Entity founder is to choose an entity that (1) "fits the business model" for the venture, and (2) makes the company "attractive" to investors. How do you know what entity is the best fit? A good starting point for making this determination is to ask yourself: "How am I going to fund my company?" Many founders start their company with their own funds on a "shoe string", focusing their resources on developing the "big idea" and bringing the product to market. However, after your "founder funds" are exhausted (self-funding), you will need to either sell your company, or seek investment from one or more of the following Private Equity sources: • Friends and Family • Angel Funds • Venture Capital by Derek A. Ridgway The investment path you choose will pay a significant role in the corporate vehicle you select for your company. What are the typical corporate entities to choose from? Generally, there are three main types of entities to choose from: Corporations, Limited Liability Companies and Partnerships. Corporations: A Corporation is owned by its shareholders, who buy stock or shares in the company in exchange for consideration.
    [Show full text]
  • NVCA 2021 YEARBOOK Data Provided by Dear Readers
    YEARBOOK Data provided by Credits & Contact National Venture Capital Association NVCA Board of Directors 2020-2021 (NVCA) EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE Washington, DC | San Francisco, CA nvca.org | [email protected] | 202-864-5920 BARRY EGGERS Lightspeed Venture Partners, Venture Forward Chair Washington, DC | San Francisco, CA MICHAEL BROWN Battery Ventures, Chair-Elect ventureforward.org | [email protected] JILL JARRETT Benchmark, Treasurer ANDY SCHWAB 5AM Ventures, Secretary BOBBY FRANKLIN President and CEO PATRICIA NAKACHE Trinity Ventures, At-Large JEFF FARRAH General Counsel EMILY MELTON Threshold Ventures, At-Large JUSTIN FIELD Senior Vice President of Government MOHAMAD MAKHZOUMI NEA, At-Large Affairs MARYAM HAQUE Executive Director, Venture AT-LARGE Forward MICHAEL CHOW Research Director, NVCA and PETER CHUNG Summit Partner Venture Forward DIANE DAYCH Granite Growth Health Partners STEPHANIE VOLK Vice President of Development BYRON DEETER Bessemer Venture Partners RHIANON ANDERSON Programs Director, Venture SCOTT DORSEY High Alpha Forward RYAN DRANT Questa Capital CHARLOTTE SAVERCOOL Senior Director of PATRICK ENRIGHT Longitude Capital Government Affairs STEVE FREDRICK Grotech Ventures MICHELE SOLOMON Director of Administration CHRIS GIRGENTI Pritzker Group Venture Capital DEVIN MILLER Manager of Communications and JOE HOROWITZ Icon Ventures Digital Strategy GEORGE HOYEM In-Q-Tel JASON VITA, Director of Programming and CHARLES HUDSON Precursor Ventures Industry Relations JILL JARRETT Benchmark JONAS MURPHY Manager of Government Affairs
    [Show full text]
  • Venture Capital, Private Equity and Hedge Funds: an Introduction
    Venture Capital, Private Equity and Hedge Funds: An Introduction UGBA 195T, 2 units Course Overview: This course will provide a high level introduction to venture capital, private equity, and hedge funds. In the course, students will learn: • What are venture capital, private equity, and hedge funds? • What types of investments do they make? • How do they generate superior investment returns? • What do the professionals in these firms do? • How are these firms organized, structured and managed? • What are the career paths in these firms? • What are the risks and rewards experienced by these firms? Teaching Method: The course will use Harvard Business School case studies written for MBA students. There will be some lectures to introduce core concepts. The course syllabus will focus approximately 50% on venture capital, 25% on private equity and 25% on hedge funds. Prerequisites / Grading / Homework: • Course is best suited for UC Berkeley seniors with extensive prior course work in business. First preference to seniors enrolled in Haas School of Business. • Some interest or experience in start-ups, investing or finance will be helpful. • Homework will include reading and analyzing one business case per week of approximately 15- 20 pages in length. • Grading will be based on classroom participation (25%), pop quizzes (25%) and a final project (50%). Instructor: Rob Chandra serves on the Haas School of Business faculty where he teaches an undergraduate course on alternative investing and co-teaches an MBA course on entrepreneurship. He is a general partner with Avid Park Ventures, a San Francisco based venture capital firm. His current or prior investments include Alibaba, CrowdStrike, Dropbox, Lending Club, MongoDB, Nutanix, Robinhood, Snap, Twitter and Uber.
    [Show full text]
  • Evolution of Japanese Venture Capital
    Evolution of Japanese Venture Capital April 24, 2008 Michael Korver Managing Partner Global Venture Capital Some Observations • Both “high-growth expectation” entrepreneurial activity and VC funding levels in Japan are much lower than in the US (even when adjusted for population and size of economy). Also lower than in Europe. • According to the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM), Japan ranked second from last among high-income countries surveyed in terms of the prevalence rate of high- growth expectation early-stage entrepreneurship during 2000 – 2006. • Venture capital is available in Japan, but much of it comes from organizations affiliated with large financial institutions. • Most VC-backed companies in Japan target domestic market exclusively. According to GEM, Japan ranks last among high-income countries surveyed in terms of the prevalence rate of the international orientation of its entrepreneurial ventures. • According to GEM, Japanese have the lowest perceptions of the positive attributes about entrepreneurship activity in the world. • Japanese VC’s depend heavily on a handful of Japanese stock exchanges for exits (and performance) of their domestic portfolio companies. • Japan is a technologically sophisticated country with large domestic early-adopter markets and global companies generating significant amounts of technology innovation. What is the role of entrepreneurship and venture capital in driving this innovation? International Comparisons • U.S. venture capitalists invested $29.4B in 3,813 deals in 2007 – marking the highest yearly investment since 2001 (MoneyTree Report) • According to preliminary figures released by the EVCA, European venture capitalists invested €11.5B in 2007 • Japanese VCs invested ¥2,800 hundred million in 2,773 companies in the year ended Mar.
    [Show full text]
  • Discrete Semiconductor Products Fairchild@50
    Fairchild Oral History Panel: Discrete Semiconductor Products Fairchild@50 (Panel Session # 3) Participants: Jim Diller Bill Elder Uli Hegel Bill Kirkham Moderated by: George Wells Recorded: October 5, 2007 Mountain View, California CHM Reference number: X4208.2008 © 2007 Computer History Museum Fairchild Semiconductor: Discrete Products George Wells: My name's George Wells. I came to Fairchild in 1969, right in the midst of the Hogan's Heroes, shall we say, subculture, at the time. It was difficult to be in that environment as a bystander, as someone watching a play unfold. It was a difficult time, but we got through that. I came to San Rafael, Wilf asked me to get my ass up to San Rafael and turn it around or shut it down. So I was up in San Rafael for a while, and then I made my way through various different divisions, collecting about 15 of them by the time I was finished. I ended up as executive vice president, working for Wilf, and left the company about a year and a half after the Schlumberger debacle. That's it in a nutshell. Let me just turn over now to Uli Hegel, who was with Fairchild for 38 years, one of the longest serving members, I believe, in the room. Maybe the longest serving member. Uli, why don't you tell us what you did when you came, when you came and what jobs you had when you were there. Uli Hegel: I came to Fairchild in 1959, September 9, and hired into R&D as a forerunner to the preproduction days.
    [Show full text]